answer_guest_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add enforcement details. It adds the guest-mode framing but says nothing about what happens when a guest_query_id is stale or already answered, whether replies are one-shot, or what the reply payload must look like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the relevant mode context. Nothing is padded, though the space saved is partly space that should have gone to explaining the payload.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a state-changing reply operation with an untyped required payload parameter, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, so the description carries the full burden — and it leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call. The version tag (v10.0) is the only extra detail and does not help invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the second parameter 'result' has no type and no constraints at all, so the description is the only place this could be clarified — yet it never mentions parameters. At most, "a received guest message" hints that guest_query_id identifies an inbound query; the shape and purpose of 'result' remain completely opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Reply to a received guest message" gives a specific verb (reply) and resource (guest message), so an agent understands this answers an incoming guest-mode query rather than sending an unsolicited message. It does not differentiate itself from look-alike siblings such as answer_callback_query, answer_web_app_query, or answer_inline_query, so the agent must infer which 'answer_*' tool fits.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence explains the guest-mode scenario in which this applies (users messaging the bot without starting a chat), which is useful context for when the tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisite that a guest query must already have been received, and no routing versus the other answer_* siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.